[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: artist's book
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: artist's book
- From: Leda Black <LMB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
- Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 14:31:11 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <01IUMCG60C6A000BY6@AXP14.AMS.ORG>
- Message-Id: <199803131930.LAA26478@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.EDU>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Shireen Holman wrote:
>I think a lot of the griping I'm reading about artist's books and book
artists has more to do with the quality of the art the writers are talking
about than with the definition of artist's book. It's as though one were to
say that there can't be such a thing as a painting or painters because
there are such things as awful paintings. But then, of course, would you
say that art is not art unless it's GOOD art (and, by whose definition?)?
And, is a book not a book unless it's a GOOD book?
This is exactly what I meant so long ago when I proposed the simple definition:
a book made by an artist. All this other stuff is gloss on the quality of the
work or value judgements. Clearly, a discussion of what makes a GOOD artist's
book is valid, it should just not get confused with the definition.
As for value...
my pet peeve is books that aren't worth reading, or books that are full of
typos. Content is very important to me but I think it is often ignored in
favor of clever structures or yummy gratuitously "pretty" materials.
L. Black, imp.